TRL Limited

Private and voluntary organisations · Transport research body

Pin Request correction

First report 17 Apr 2014•Latest report 21 Dec 2022

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Reports
2

Naming this recipient

Published responses
50%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
2

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
3

Described in responses

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from TRL Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. East Riding and Hull

    AI-generated summary

    Donald Frederick HOOKER · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Donald Frederick HOOKER died on 28 August 2021 after his motorcycle’s drive chain broke while he was travelling on the Humber Bridge, causing a collision and fall. His crash helmet came off during the incident, and he sustained severe head and facial injuries. The principal concerns were the lack of understanding of why motorcycle helmets come off or rotate during collisions and the absence of clear checks or education concerning helmet sizing and fitting.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to TRL Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to ensure correct motorcycle helmet sizing and fitting

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) This is the second matter that has been referred to my jurisdiction in recent months where a motorcyclist has lost his helmet during a collision. During evidence it was adduced that, although it is not a common occurrence, it is certainly not unusual for a motorcyclist’s helmet to come off or to rotate during a collision. (2) The Forensic Collision Investigator was unable to explain the reason for Dr Hooker’s crash helmet coming off. The chin strap was in place. (3) The Forensic Collision Investigator indicated that she had been unable to find any research or scientific data on why such incidents occur. (4) It was adduced in evidence that a kit safety mark may be checked by an instructor during motor cycle courses/tests but there did not appear to be a known check for ensuring a person has the correct size motorcycle helmet. (5) It was acknowledged that many people may now purchase motorcycle helmets over the internet and the sizing and fitting may not be appropriate. (6) I am concerned that without knowledge of why such incidents are occurring, or appropriate education of the riders, that more deaths may occur. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to TRL Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Motorcycle helmets coming off or rotating during collisions

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) This is the second matter that has been referred to my jurisdiction in recent months where a motorcyclist has lost his helmet during a collision. During evidence it was adduced that, although it is not a common occurrence, it is certainly not unusual for a motorcyclist’s helmet to come off or to rotate during a collision. (2) The Forensic Collision Investigator was unable to explain the reason for Dr Hooker’s crash helmet coming off. The chin strap was in place. (3) The Forensic Collision Investigator indicated that she had been unable to find any research or scientific data on why such incidents occur. (4) It was adduced in evidence that a kit safety mark may be checked by an instructor during motor cycle courses/tests but there did not appear to be a known check for ensuring a person has the correct size motorcycle helmet. (5) It was acknowledged that many people may now purchase motorcycle helmets over the internet and the sizing and fitting may not be appropriate. (6) I am concerned that without knowledge of why such incidents are occurring, or appropriate education of the riders, that more deaths may occur. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to TRL Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of appropriate education for motorcycle riders

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) This is the second matter that has been referred to my jurisdiction in recent months where a motorcyclist has lost his helmet during a collision. During evidence it was adduced that, although it is not a common occurrence, it is certainly not unusual for a motorcyclist’s helmet to come off or to rotate during a collision. (2) The Forensic Collision Investigator was unable to explain the reason for Dr Hooker’s crash helmet coming off. The chin strap was in place. (3) The Forensic Collision Investigator indicated that she had been unable to find any research or scientific data on why such incidents occur. (4) It was adduced in evidence that a kit safety mark may be checked by an instructor during motor cycle courses/tests but there did not appear to be a known check for ensuring a person has the correct size motorcycle helmet. (5) It was acknowledged that many people may now purchase motorcycle helmets over the internet and the sizing and fitting may not be appropriate. (6) I am concerned that without knowledge of why such incidents are occurring, or appropriate education of the riders, that more deaths may occur. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to TRL Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of research and knowledge about motorcycle helmet displacement during collisions

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) This is the second matter that has been referred to my jurisdiction in recent months where a motorcyclist has lost his helmet during a collision. During evidence it was adduced that, although it is not a common occurrence, it is certainly not unusual for a motorcyclist’s helmet to come off or to rotate during a collision. (2) The Forensic Collision Investigator was unable to explain the reason for Dr Hooker’s crash helmet coming off. The chin strap was in place. (3) The Forensic Collision Investigator indicated that she had been unable to find any research or scientific data on why such incidents occur. (4) It was adduced in evidence that a kit safety mark may be checked by an instructor during motor cycle courses/tests but there did not appear to be a known check for ensuring a person has the correct size motorcycle helmet. (5) It was acknowledged that many people may now purchase motorcycle helmets over the internet and the sizing and fitting may not be appropriate. (6) I am concerned that without knowledge of why such incidents are occurring, or appropriate education of the riders, that more deaths may occur. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Conduct research into motorcycle-helmet loss, including retention testing, helmet design compliance and loss mechanisms.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In 2018, TRL has conducted our own research into helmet loss, or more specifically our “Helmet Retention Report” (https://www.trl.co.uk/publications/helmet-retention-report). This self-funded study had two specific aims. The first”

    Source location

    Response from the Future of Transport
    Page 1 · response
    Published 4 January 2023

    Open published response

  2. West Yorkshire (Western)

    AI-generated summary

    Muriel Dawson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Muriel Dawson, aged 90, died shortly after being thrown forward from her unrestrained aisle seat when a public service bus braked suddenly. She suffered a complete fracture of the lumbar vertebrae and associated trauma. The principal concern was that the vehicle’s design and type-approval gave insufficient weight to the risk of death or serious injury to passengers, particularly because seats lacked restraints and a possible restraining feature was absent.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to TRL Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of forward restraint or equivalent impact protection at passenger seats on narrow scheduled service buses

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) My findings were, as summarised in the narrative conclusion, that Muriel Dawson was travelling on an Optare “hopper” type scheduled service bus (narrow model) and the evidence to the Coroner’s court indicated that the profile of passengers on such a vehicle would overwhelmingly be elderly. The evidence given was to the effect that the design of the vehicle provides a compromise between safety and convenience as it allows for standing passengers, seated passengers and provision for a wheelchair. The design is such that the seat in which Mrs. Dawson was seated at the time of the incident has no form of restraint should there be a violent forward motion exerted on passengers, eg. by an emergency stop. The seat position (viewed from the front facing back) is on the right hand side and is in the third row. It is the aisle seat of the first double seats, the two rows in front being single seats on that side. (2) It is understood that these vehicles are type-approved and the operator has not made modifications to them and thus the original design and approval of the vehicle is universally match which is in regular use. Seat belts are not required to be fitted to any seats. (3) The evidence to the inquest was that this vehicle had to stop suddenly; the brakes were correctly applied, but there was nothing to prevent Mrs. Dawson being thrown forward and she lost her life as a result of hitting the front panel of the bus having slid the remaining length of the vehicle. Her death was due to the impact with the vehicle fracturing her spine. (4) It appeared from evidence that, still consistent with convenience, disabled access and gangway width, a floor to ceiling pole with horizontal bar, or some similar restraining construction could have been applied to the area immediately in front of her seat. (5) It is appreciated that the backs of seats, bars and similar elements of the interior of a vehicle can cause injury in the event of a sudden stop, but I considered, based on the evidence given, that some similar design feature of the vehicle as mentioned in (4) above could, and probably would, have prevented Mrs. Dawson being thrown forward for such distance and with such momentum as to cause her death. (6) It appears from the evidence, albeit indirectly reported to the Coroner at the inquest, that other operators have expressed concerns with the current design, but feel there is nothing they can do in a type-approved vehicle. I am concerned that the type-approval has given insufficient weight to the risk of death or serious injury. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to TRL Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Type-approval failing to give sufficient weight to the risk of death or serious injury

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) My findings were, as summarised in the narrative conclusion, that Muriel Dawson was travelling on an Optare “hopper” type scheduled service bus (narrow model) and the evidence to the Coroner’s court indicated that the profile of passengers on such a vehicle would overwhelmingly be elderly. The evidence given was to the effect that the design of the vehicle provides a compromise between safety and convenience as it allows for standing passengers, seated passengers and provision for a wheelchair. The design is such that the seat in which Mrs. Dawson was seated at the time of the incident has no form of restraint should there be a violent forward motion exerted on passengers, eg. by an emergency stop. The seat position (viewed from the front facing back) is on the right hand side and is in the third row. It is the aisle seat of the first double seats, the two rows in front being single seats on that side. (2) It is understood that these vehicles are type-approved and the operator has not made modifications to them and thus the original design and approval of the vehicle is universally match which is in regular use. Seat belts are not required to be fitted to any seats. (3) The evidence to the inquest was that this vehicle had to stop suddenly; the brakes were correctly applied, but there was nothing to prevent Mrs. Dawson being thrown forward and she lost her life as a result of hitting the front panel of the bus having slid the remaining length of the vehicle. Her death was due to the impact with the vehicle fracturing her spine. (4) It appeared from evidence that, still consistent with convenience, disabled access and gangway width, a floor to ceiling pole with horizontal bar, or some similar restraining construction could have been applied to the area immediately in front of her seat. (5) It is appreciated that the backs of seats, bars and similar elements of the interior of a vehicle can cause injury in the event of a sudden stop, but I considered, based on the evidence given, that some similar design feature of the vehicle as mentioned in (4) above could, and probably would, have prevented Mrs. Dawson being thrown forward for such distance and with such momentum as to cause her death. (6) It appears from the evidence, albeit indirectly reported to the Coroner at the inquest, that other operators have expressed concerns with the current design, but feel there is nothing they can do in a type-approved vehicle. I am concerned that the type-approval has given insufficient weight to the risk of death or serious injury. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026